The Queen's Speech was all about naked politics – and we need more of it

Only David Cameron and the Tories can rebuild Britain, and voters want to know
how they'll do it, says Benedict Brogan

Was that the briefest gasp of despair from the Queen after she read the bit about building trust in democratic institutions? Was she caught off guard by the sheer improbability of restoring national confidence in Parliament with that lot of flummeried scroungers, troughers and chancers packing the floor in front of her? As she studied the self-satisfied faces of peers who faked their place of residence to claim six-figure allowances, and MPs who flipped their homes to build their property portfolios at our expense, the irony must have been too much even for such a worldly-wise observer of the political scene.

For all its brevity, at least the gracious speech delivered what we had been promised: an unalloyed exercise in political positioning. There was no attempt to disguise the deliberate opportunism of a package that forms the rough draft of Labour's election manifesto. If you hesitate between the public assurance from Peter Mandelson that it was all about governing rather than electioneering, and the anonymous Cabinet minister who said it was "the most political Queen's Speech in 12 years", I'd stick with what is being said in private. Believe it or not, this motley collection of Bills is Labour's battle plan for survival, tested by focus groups and put together based on what Gordon Brown and his advisers think will serve to shore up Labour support and peel off enough wavering voters to deny David Cameron the majority he hopes for.

A political Queen's Speech six months from an election is no more surprising than a political Budget six weeks from polling day. It is what governments do – no doubt a Cameron administration will seize its chances, if it gets them – and anyway, the future of the country is in play, and deserves debate. If anything we need more politics, not less: yesterday was the moment the argument that will run until May 6 (or whichever date Mr Brown chooses for his appointment with the electorate) should have been set out for all to see. Why pretend the State Opening should be all high-brow and statesmanlike when what we want, really, is a political grudge match in the cockpit of Parliament that should set out a single dividing line between a discredited Government and a government-in-waiting?

The Brown circle is actively briefing a scenario that brings together various straws and clutches them tight: the economy is recovering, the growth in unemployment is slowing, women find Tory talk of cuts unappealing, Mr Cameron is not selling up north in the West Yorkshire-Lancashire-West Midlands seats that will decide the thing, the polls are not as dire as they might be, the Tories have to beat all records to win 117 new seats for a majority of just one. Put it together and – hey presto! – we end up with a hung Parliament and, crucially, the Conservatives are denied victory. It is a narrative that feeds on what Labour hopes, with little justification, are doubts about the Tory leader and what he offers.

They do this, in part, to distract attention from persistent speculation inside the Labour Party that, even at this 11th hour, Mr Brown will be persuaded to step aside as leader. Lord Mandelson is, of course, given a pivotal role, despite his conference pledge of loyalty unto the end. Yesterday, he denied any "present" plans to take advantage of a proposed legal change that would allow him to renounce his peerage, stand for the Commons again, and put himself forward as a leadership candidate. Privately, he knows the measure, like so many others, is due to be dropped before Parliament is dissolved.

Some in Labour argue – perversely, in my view – that the party would benefit from the attention that would come with a contest before an election. The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. Even if it means enduring bad headlines, what matters is denying Mr Cameron the oxygen of publicity. What is certain is the growing anger within the party aimed at a leader who has so spectacularly failed to live up to his own billing. Wise heads fearing disaster say he will not go voluntarily, but cannot rule out some final, devastating internal crisis that forces him out. There are still enough people in the party hierarchy concerned about survival who want a scorched earth, fighting retreat, and will contemplate anything.

This is what Mr Cameron had to confront yesterday, a cornered Government throwing bones to entice its disillusioned clients: the Left got an attack on bankers, the unions a promise of workplace rights for agency workers, the poor got pledges of cheaper electricity and free elderly care. The Tory leader's analysis of Mr Brown's myriad weaknesses was devastating, but his reply fell short of a big Parliamentary moment. He offered neither last rites for a dying administration, nor a magisterial vision of what awaits us if we survive the next six months and return a Conservative government. Having derided the crass politicking of Mr Brown, he produced neither memorable politics nor compelling statesmanship. Yet we know he is capable of both.

His challenge now is to seize the opportunity to extend and deepen his preparations behind the scenes, where radical work is being undertaken on the shape and role of government, and also to step up the political argument for the changes that will be necessary. Fearful of what they have gleaned so far from their talks with civil servants, some of his colleagues want him to be even more explicit about the horrors that await when the government books are opened, and the painful choices that must follow.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that nothing short of a national restoration project is needed, one that would rethink all our assumptions about how Britain works and our place in the world. The questions multiply by the day: If the City is no longer to be the engine of our growth, what replaces it? If the rise of new economic powers mean our capacity as a major player in defence and diplomacy is diminished, where do we stand? In a globalised world, why should we stay in the European Union? If individuals are empowered by the internet and the availability of information, how far back can the boundaries of the state be pushed? Can a broken Parliament be repaired in a 19th-century palace?

If there is comfort to be found in yesterday's crude displays, it is that politics is the means by which we can start a debate about a programme for rebuilding Britain. Only the Conservatives can lead it. Privately, they say that all will become clear and inspiring when the election is called and their campaign is unveiled. But it is more urgent than that. Voters may be fed up, even jaded, but they are not uninterested in the question of what happens next in our island story. They will want to hear far more from Mr Cameron about this work of renewal before he gets to ask the Queen to read his speech.